Or perhaps candidates should just tell people what they want to happen to the game, and then let people vote for them, or not, based on that. That would be better than just voting how their alliance leader tells them. But for many null sec sheep that is too much to ask.

Except that's a terrible reason to vote or not vote for someone, as what they want to happen to the game is next to meaningless in general, and insignificant compared to how well they know the game, how well they communicate, how committed they are to the position, how effectively they absorb and synthesize feedback from the general playerbase, to name but a few.

Please though, continue to push this "it's where you come from that matters" and "nullsec vs hisec" line, as you only further marginalize yourself and take other idiots with you.

The same is said for most of HS, then, only they have no lion to follow ...
No, the problem isn't "null sec sheep", although they may exist, but your pre-determined perception.

Now, please show ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE for your claims.
This far, they're pretty easy to dismiss.

"You're talking out of your buttom."
There, that's a rebuttal of your argument.

Did you read Mittanis csm 6 campaign post? Is it not exactly as I describe?

Did you read hans' campaign post? Is it not the only one that contains anything close to a concrete vision for the game?

Obviously all candidates should be very clear whether they belong to the horde of evil and corrupt nullsec zealots who want to destroy all of hisec or if they are a brave hero who will champion the rights of all hisec players to shoot red crosses and grind spacerocks unmolested by psychopaths.

Anyone who doesn't announce their position in this fundamental dichotomy should be assumed to be a shadow member of the former group.

No, I didn't, both because I can't care enough to support your argument to find it, and because if your best example is The Mittanis candidacy back in 2011 then I really can't see how it supports your drivel.

Did you read hans' campaign post? Is it not the only one that contains anything close to a concrete vision for the game?

ban npc corps from csm forums

I tell you that null sec sheep will vote for whoever they are told even if that person doesn't tell them what they want to happen with the game. I say mittani did this as a case in point.

You say I have no proof.

I say read what he wrote when he ran for the evidence.

You refuse and just say my claim is drivel. I can't force you to read the evidence if you are intent on being a drooling zombie supporing your brave leader, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

I'd throw support to a candidate that adds this to their platform.

Issler

First, to split hairs: You haven't presented any proof. You have presented one claim where I have shown you that even if that claim is exactly as you say, it's not proof of any flaw.


If it's that important, please by all means link me to the relevant threads.


I'm not sure you can show your ignorance of the matter in any clearer case than this. Please, grow a brain or something before you enter debates with sentient beings.
I can't see how it's my job to find evidence for your position.

Your ball.

I looked it up on eve search. It is even more ridiculous than I remember it.

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1473855-0/page/1

I looked it up on eve search. It is even more ridiculous than I remember it.

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1473855-0/page/1

Now please tell me all about how that supports your "null sec are sheep and are voting exactly identical to their corporate masters wishes"-hypothesis.

Let it go already. How can you get so emotionally charged over another person's point of view? You're arguing with yourself. You believe one thing; they believe something else. Accept it and move on. By the way, I disagree with much of what you say but I've not sat here posting repeatedly harsh remarks at you because I disagree. Perhaps you should take a moment to read your own material and ask yourself it that's really the kind of person you wish to be.

Now please tell me all about how that supports your "null sec are sheep and are voting exactly identical to their corporate masters wishes"-hypothesis.

I like that if I wanted to, I could agree with your point about The Mittani, rescind those few lines, and still have decimated your argument, leaving you with an empty hat and a bill to pay... Nice attempt, now could you please stop dodging?

(I'll look up the finer details about The Mittani's CSM 6 and 7 campaigns and respond to that tiny and non-essential part of the argument when done. The stuff I said about him was from memory, so perhaps I'm slightly off on that one.)

So, I acknowledge that The Mittanis posted platform for CSM6 contained none of the specific changes that you think the CSM should advocate.
It still had a vision, and it still had a clear course of action ahead.
It's just wasn't dumb enough to promise all the specifics of how sec status should improve in the future or exactly how ice mining should be changed.

Now please explain how your lack of a single data point prove your hypothesis.

Just curious if you've ever encountered someone named Major Tom.